The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The International Progress Organization (IPO) Research Paper IS NOT LAW. It does not override the decisions made by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920).

“The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

(COMMENT)

First, the determination of "who is an inhabitant" is temporally subjective. In 1945, the inhabitants of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was the summation of all those people having permanent residents. That included the Jewish People.

Secondly, those same Jewish People established a successful state under the Right of Self-Determination which is extended to all people. And this was not inconsistent with the decisions of the Allied Powers in 1920.

Today's interpretations of what has now become the Arab Palestinian mantra cannot be retroactively applied to a time when such theories (or principles) were not commonly accepted. These same theories (or principles) cannot be considered acceptable if there was no chance of the Jewish National Home objective would have surely been destroyed by a dominant Arab Population. And, it is a mentally deficient set of logical principles that considered rolling back the decisions made a century ago to accommodate the poor political decisions made by an inept Arab Palestinian leadership in the early years of the 20th Century.

You can call up all the research you want. It does not change the reality that no political decision made today will be accepted if it destabilizes the most successful nation in the Middle East Region is creating a regional war. And the Israeli people are not going to just roll over and allow the Jewish National Home to be overrun by the least successful and most corrupt people (with the possible exception of the Syrians) in the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The International Progress Organization (IPO) Research Paper IS NOT LAW. It does not override the decisions made by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920).


(COMMENT)

First, the determination of "who is an inhabitant" is temporally subjective. In 1945, the inhabitants of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was the summation of all those people having permanent residents. That included the Jewish People.

Secondly, those same Jewish People established a successful state under the Right of Self-Determination which is extended to all people. And this was not inconsistent with the decisions of the Allied Powers in 1920.

Today's interpretations of what has now become the Arab Palestinian mantra cannot be retroactively applied to a time when such theories (or principles) were not commonly accepted. These same theories (or principles) cannot be considered acceptable if there was no chance of the Jewish National Home objective would have surely been destroyed by a dominant Arab Population. And, it is a mentally deficient set of logical principles that considered rolling back the decisions made a century ago to accommodate the poor political decisions made by an inept Arab Palestinian leadership in the early years of the 20th Century.

You can call up all the research you want. It does not change the reality that no political decision made today will be accepted if it destabilizes the most successful nation in the Middle East Region is creating a regional war. And the Israeli people are not going to just roll over and allow the Jewish National Home to be overrun by the least successful and most corrupt people (with the possible exception of the Syrians) in the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your usual smear piece

Today's interpretations of what has now become the Arab Palestinian mantra cannot be retroactively applied to a time when such theories (or principles) were not commonly accepted.

The right to self determination is an inalienable right in Palestine. (A territory defined by international borders.) Neither the Mandate nor anyone else can alienate it.
.

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The International Progress Organization (IPO) Research Paper IS NOT LAW. It does not override the decisions made by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920).


(COMMENT)

First, the determination of "who is an inhabitant" is temporally subjective. In 1945, the inhabitants of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was the summation of all those people having permanent residents. That included the Jewish People.

Secondly, those same Jewish People established a successful state under the Right of Self-Determination which is extended to all people. And this was not inconsistent with the decisions of the Allied Powers in 1920.

Today's interpretations of what has now become the Arab Palestinian mantra cannot be retroactively applied to a time when such theories (or principles) were not commonly accepted. These same theories (or principles) cannot be considered acceptable if there was no chance of the Jewish National Home objective would have surely been destroyed by a dominant Arab Population. And, it is a mentally deficient set of logical principles that considered rolling back the decisions made a century ago to accommodate the poor political decisions made by an inept Arab Palestinian leadership in the early years of the 20th Century.

You can call up all the research you want. It does not change the reality that no political decision made today will be accepted if it destabilizes the most successful nation in the Middle East Region is creating a regional war. And the Israeli people are not going to just roll over and allow the Jewish National Home to be overrun by the least successful and most corrupt people (with the possible exception of the Syrians) in the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

All this marry go round with people like P F Tinmore
is only meant to detract us here from any real discussion,
for a variety of selfish motives as greed and group approval.

The question remains - of quantity vs quality, conformity vs critical thinking,
and the potential of using our individuality and talents constructively.
I think we should not underappreciate that.

At the end of the day - our critical mass and individualism,
with the nonconformist nature of Israel are more influential than their Populism.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The right to self determination is an inalienable right in Palestine. (A territory defined by international borders.) Neither the Mandate nor anyone else can alienate it.
.

(COMMENT)

There is no record of a nation of Palestine. No Palestinian Government has staked out a territory in its name.

And never forget! The Israeli People have the very same rights as the Palestinians claim. There is no special provision that makes the Arab Palestinian a notch above the Israeli's.

And of course, any right can tag the adjective "inalienable" to it. It doesn't make it special. Rights are defined by man → not supernaturally. There are many "rights" defined by man. But the rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the US are different in each case. They may have all signed the covenant, but then don't all interpret it or apply it the same way.

Show me the law that enforces "inalienable."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

No Palestinian Government has staked out a territory in its name.

Rights belong to the inhabitants not to any state or government.

Look it up.

 

[rylah]

Rights belong to the inhabitants not to any state or government.

Look it up.

Inhabitants are individuals,
but the rights are as well national.

Does an individual lose national rights
when inhabiting another country?

 

[rylah]

Your usual smear piece


The right to self determination is an inalienable right in Palestine. (A territory defined by international borders.) Neither the Mandate nor anyone else can alienate it.
.

Who's "inalienable self-determination",
do Arabs have a right to their Caliphate,
or Kurds the right to Kurdistan in Palestine?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Civil and Political Rights
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Rights belong to the inhabitants not to any state or government.

Look it up.

(COMMENT)
.
I do not believe anyone argued against that point.

What was stated in my own words was derived from:

The States Parties (

ie States and Governments) to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

The "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (CCPR) is an agreement that enjoins the signatories to respect the Rights of the Israelis to exercise their CCPR and to form their own self-governing institutions to include the Jewish State. The Israelis today are inhabitants of the territory over which they have established "sovereignty." They have:

◈ ) a permanent population; ​

◈ ) a defined territory; ​

◈ ) government; and ​

◈) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

No matter what the argument raised, there is nothing that the Arab Palestinian can put forth that can take their nation away. N O T H I N G !

And the Arab Palestinians have, for over 100 years, attempting to obstruct the reconstituting the national home for the Jewish people within the territory formerly under the mandate.

It is done.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (CCPR) is an agreement that enjoins the signatories to respect the Rights of the Israelis to exercise their CCPR and to form their own self-governing institutions to include the Jewish State.

Israel was not mentioned.

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ ) a permanent population; ◈ ) a defined territory; ◈ ) government;

Israel's "permanent" population was recent colonial settlers.
Israel still has no defined territory.
Israel's government was foreign imposed against the wishes of the majority of the population.

 

[Hollie]

Israel's "permanent" population was recent colonial settlers.
Israel still has no defined territory.
Israel's government was foreign imposed against the wishes of the majority of the population.

You float these same phony claims despite the fact that they’re demonstrably false.

Phony Islamist propaganda doesn’t become true with multiplied instances of cutting and pasting the same phony propaganda.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Civil and Political Rights
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

◈ ) a permanent population; ​

◈ ) a defined territory; ​

◈ ) government; and ​

◈) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Israel's "permanent" population was recent colonial settlers.
Israel still has no defined territory.
Israel's government was foreign imposed against the wishes of the majority of the population.

(COMMENT)
.
The Israelis are recognized around the world.

​

Israel has defined it territory by borders markers. I have no doubt that the Arab Palestinians have notice the "by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on."

delimitation ‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a boundary. The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. Demarcation denotes the means by which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on. The principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ).

The Israelis have had democratic governments regime changes seven times by free elections. It makes no difference how you describe the Israeli government. It only means something to the Israelis.
.

Israel was not mentioned.

The "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (CCPR) is an agreement that enjoins the signatories to respect the Rights of the Israelis to exercise their CCPR and to form their own self-governing institutions to include the Jewish State.

(COMMENT)

No government (state or nation) is mentioned in the CCPR. The CCPR applies all signatories equally; which Israel is. However, Countries which have both Signed and Ratified this document do not include Palestine. So, while Israel is obligated, the Arab Palestinians are not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

You float these same phony claims despite the fact that they’re demonstrably false.

Phony Islamist propaganda doesn’t become true with multiplied instances of cutting and pasting the same phony propaganda.

What is not true?

 

[rylah]

What is not true?

That your exact definition of colonialism
does not fit Arabs with their political goals...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel has defined it territory by borders markers.

Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

 

[Hollie]

Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

That’s the same phony argument you cut and paste in multiple threads.

 

[rylah]

Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

First is a misconception.
Second is correct, regrading the political and territorial borders,
defined by international law with re-constitution of the Jewish nation remain intact.

Question rather the supremacist demand for exclusive Arab domination
help decolonize Africa and various Mediterranean countries?

 

[P F Tinmore]

That’s the same phony argument you cut and paste in multiple threads.

It's true. Read the Armistice Agreements.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That your exact definition of colonialism
does not fit Arabs with their political goals...

Deflection.

 

[Hollie]

It's true. Read the Armistice Agreements.

It’s not true. Read the Armistice agreements.